Four class action lawsuits (3 in California and 1 in Illinois) were filed against Wells Fargo alleging discriminatory pricing in its mortgage loan products. In re Wells Fargo Mortgage Lending Prac. Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 10, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Northern District of Illinois or, alternatively, in the Southern District of Iowa; lawyers for the various class action plaintiffs agreed that pretrial coordination was appropriate and the Illinois plaintiffs supported transfer to Illinois, but lawyers in the California class actions argued that the Northern District of California was the appropriate transferee court. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, explaining that “[a]ll actions share factual questions relating to whether Wells Fargo engaged in discriminatory residential lending practices, including the imposition of discretionary fees/charges which increased the cost of financing resulting in higher loans for minority borrowers than similarly situated nonminority borrowers.” Id. Further, centralization “will eliminate duplicative discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially on the issue of class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” Id. However, the Judicial Panel agreed with the California class action plaintiffs’ request to transfer the lawsuits to the Northern District of California because three of the actions are pending there and because Wells Fargo is headquartered in San Francisco. Id. Accordingly, the Panel ordered the class actions transferred to California, id., at 2.

Michael J. Hassen's litigation practice spans almost 30 years and emphasizes general business and commercial litigation, including class action defense and unfair business practice representative actions (section 17200).

He represents lenders in all facets of lender litigation, ranging from class actions and unfair business practices based on alleged "predatory" lending and RESPA violations or alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, to claims alleging elder abuse or challenging the validity or priority of liens.

Michael also has significant experience in business torts such as misappropriation of trade secrets and raiding of corporate employees, ADA claims, and all phases of commercial and real estate finance, construction finance and construction defect claims.

He is experienced in appellate matters, having had primary responsibility for preparing more than 100 appellate briefs.